That does put a bit more context on it before. IF Bradshaw had been able to get away with the goose-stepping bit as a heel before with no troubles (though apparently not as a main-eventer), it’s a bit more understandable why he wouldn’t see anything wrong with doing it again.

And while a “non-biased” media is a lovely goal to reach for, I had to admit that the Post’s rhetorical question about CNBC’s stance (“Goose-stepping to rile German fans is bad! But hating Mexicans? We’re fine wit that.”) got a chuckle out of me. I’ve gotta admit that I’m surprised – the article seemed to take more of a pro-WWE stance and painted both the company and Bradshaw in more of a sympathetic light.

Yeah, and that’s the big if. I don’t know if he somehow meant that the Fed had been doing it for decades (and damn if I can’t remember a single show report from their previous trips to Germany to confirm or deny that any heels had done that) or that he used to do it prior to his WWF debut. Unfortunately, I never really cared enough about Bradshaw to learn about his early years. But there’s gotta be somewhere that details that sort of thing, right?

I'm surprised that CNBC actually fired him because people aren't watching him for morality, they're watching him for stock tips.

What he did was a total lapse in judgement and his "I did it before" excuse is laughable but I think CNBC jumped the gun in firing him. I doubt the 0.01 rating that CNBC gets probably either wouldn't have cared or known about it.

The saddest thing is that the only way Bradshaw has been able to garner any heat in the past decade in Germany is to act like a Nazi. The cheapest of all cheap heat. I can think of many less revolting ways to insult a German audience without doing Nazi mannerisms. If he had any sense he would have at least been a little subtle about it and cut a promo bashing Germany for booing him because if it wasn't for "Great Americans like him, you wouldn't have freedom!"

Originally posted by PhantomAnd while a “non-biased” media is a lovely goal to reach for, I had to admit that the Post’s rhetorical question about CNBC’s stance (“Goose-stepping to rile German fans is bad! But hating Mexicans? We’re fine wit that.”) got a chuckle out of me. I’ve gotta admit that I’m surprised – the article seemed to take more of a pro-WWE stance and painted both the company and Bradshaw in more of a sympathetic light.

Well, "pro-WWE" is coincidental, if the Post's actual agenda is "anti-CNBC". (Any opportunity to take a jab at a "fellow" news agency, eh? That's what it sounds like to me.) :-)

Originally posted by Washington Post's article"That, Layfield told The TV Column, is something he'd done before when performing in Germany both for WWE and for a German wrestling outfit, and is among the "reprehensible" things the character he plays has done."

Sorry, but I'm missing the basis for the quibble over the word "decades" here, particularly considering all the paraphrases. It wouldn't suprise me a bit if during his decades-long pro-wrestling career, he's done it before with no negative repercussions.

Yes, he should be bright enough to realise that in his current, elevated, widely-exposed position, anything he does will garner more scrutiny, & this was not the brightest move. But the comparison to "legitimate" actors, that he's just playing a character, is totally valid. An alternative reaction by CNBC might have been to issue that clarification, rather than summarily firing him. I can see his point here. The Post's article absolutely does provide the balancing perspective.

The sad thing is that this really was a non-story until CNBC fired Bradshaw. It honestly would have had about the same amount of long-term impact as when Eddie attacked that fan who poured beer on him, and would probably have gotten almost no press at all outside of the a week or so in the dirt sheets. Then CNBC issues a press release stating that they fired him, and THAT is the story that got picked up.

Bradshaw just should have taken his medicine and apologized. But as usual, he comes off as someone without real common sense and no idea of the world outside of his. His response reminds me of his diatribe against internet fans.

But the funny thing is Vince is sitting back smiling because of the free publicity.

January 4th 1999 - The day WCW injected itself with 10 gallons of Liquid Anthrax...AKA...The day Hogan "Defeated" Nash to win the WCW title in front of 40,000.

Originally posted by PhantomYeah, and that’s the big if. I don’t know if he somehow meant that the Fed had been doing it for decades (and damn if I can’t remember a single show report from their previous trips to Germany to confirm or deny that any heels had done that) or that he used to do it prior to his WWF debut. Unfortunately, I never really cared enough about Bradshaw to learn about his early years. But there’s gotta be somewhere that details that sort of thing, right?

Originally posted by PhantomYeah, and that’s the big if. I don’t know if he somehow meant that the Fed had been doing it for decades (and damn if I can’t remember a single show report from their previous trips to Germany to confirm or deny that any heels had done that) or that he used to do it prior to his WWF debut. Unfortunately, I never really cared enough about Bradshaw to learn about his early years. But there’s gotta be somewhere that details that sort of thing, right?

...Oh. Yeah, that would do it, and that supports Bradshaw’s assertion that he’d done that sort of thing before.

And here I was thinking that maybe I could do a full scouring of the internet this weekend in a mad search for the one guy on the internet who dedicates his time to tracking the career of Bradshaw, and would have a detailed page listing all the various matches that Bradshaw had throughout his storied career. :)

Well, Da Meltz is tooting that a)Edge will most likely be written out of the match and replaced at some point in the show's early going, and b)There are frantic last-minute negotiations going down to get Goldberg to show up in some role.